National Republican., 1887-10-07
NNI,nt nIr rnrlIaIn AhmIta.

The contest which Mr.. Tbobe is making
for the seat in Congress claimed by Mr.
Carlisle is persistently belttled by Demo-
cratic papers. They say, without knowing
anything of the facts, that Mr.. Thobe has
no case, &c.
But as a matter Of fact Mr.. Thobe has a
perfectly plain title to the seat, taking The
facts as admitted By both parties. Mr..
Thobe alleges that the law of the state was
violated in the appointment OF the oilicsrs
OF the elections, in that at many OF the
polling places these officers were all, or
majority Of them, Democrats, when the law
required that they should be equally divided
between the political parties. Here "a the
law as 1t is In the Revised Statutes OF
Kentucky, vol. l, chap. 33, page 456, being
an amendment to the election laws Of the
state, approved Feb. II. 1858:
That, hereafter, SO long as there arc two dis
| tisctve political parties ia this common
wealth the sheriiIs, judges, and clerks Of cleo
| tions in all cases of elections by the poopt.
| under the constitution and laws of the Unite1
| States, and under the constitution and laws o
| Kentucky, shall be so selected and apnDintei
| as that ono NJ The iUdgcs at each place staN be n
| one political pa IN, and he ottcr itdpe n III
| ohcr or opposing p1Hicdt parih and INT u
| iigs difference haH erisi at each place Of pDtiaO
| betutea The SheriT and ci,rk of cicc,ions PRO.
| vidcd that there be Il sufficient number of tn
| members of each political party resident in
| he several precincts, as Aforesaid, 10 fill said
oflces
And this requirement shall be observed bv
all officers of this commonwealth who hav
power to appoint any Of the aforesaid oiicer'
OF election. under the penalty OF fine of 500
for each omission, TO be recovered by present.
ment of the grand Jury.
This law is plain and man1atory-con
mands certain thugs to be done. 1t say
the election officers shall be divided be-
tween the political parties, giving no dis
erection to the appointing officers.
MIR. Thobe, In his notice of contest,
alleges, rs to Trimble county, that
tall the officers Of the said election
at all the precincts or voting places
OF said Trimble county, and at each aud
every one Of them, were selected and ap-
pointed from the Democratic party, and
belonged to one only Of the political par
ties in this commonwealth, to wit, the
Democratic party; that said officers of
election were not so selected and appointed
as that one Of the judges at each place OF
voting was OF one political party and the
other Judge OF the other political party, and
that the like difference at each place OF
voting between the sheriffs and clerks of
election at said precincts and this, too,
notwithstanding the fact that there were
sufficient number of persons, discreet vot-
ers, to I'LL said Offices, residing within said
several precincts, Of Republicans, from
which said Office OF election might have
been selected and appointed, as the law
provides and requires"
This charge Ia repeated as to almost every
precinct in all the counties except Kenton
and Campbell, together with the allega-
tion that the election officers were moi
sworn as required by law.
| III MS IUspUIisr tho nvtivo- Of oont oct
which contains forty three distinct allega
tions, Mr.. Carlisle takes up each of theu
by number, and denies or admits what |,
charged. For instance, to the charg,
printed above as to Trimble county Mr.
: Carlisle says:
8. For response TO the Gfth specification #
said notice Numbered A. 1t is true that Nil tn,
officers of election in said county of TrimbN
= belonged TO one political parry, TO wit thi
Democratic party, except the clerk and on
= | Judge at Barraws precinct, in said county; bn
| aver that the said election was legally an,
fairly held, and that every vote cast f,r yDu /,
the said county OF Trimble was counted 70
you There were no qualified K Republican
resident in any Of the other precincts of sal
county who were willing to accept the sal
Offices or to serve therein.
. This admits that at all the precincts 1
Trimble county but one the election officer
were not appointed In accordance with Law
hut claims that there were none Of the OF
posite party qualified to act, That Is
matter susceptible of proof, and If true, a
asserted by Mr.. Thobe and admitted b
Mr.. Carlisle, that all the election Officer
were Democrats, 1t was Mr. Carlisle's dut
to prove that there were no qualified me
"of the opposing political partyn residin
in those precincts. Mr. Carlisle admits ths
all the officers were Democrats, and dSseri
that none others could be found to I'LL th
places. His admission is fatal to him b.
cause he did not prove his assertion.
The same admission is made as the on
quoted above as to a large number OF pol
ing places, though the same assertion doe
not accompany the admissions.
Altogether Mr.. Carlisle admits that th
u officers were not equally divided at the TO
lowing precincts, where the votes were re
turned as given below